Kentucky’s adoption of a charter school bill last year was a positive step forward for the commonwealth. But the legislation itself left a great deal to be desired and in many ways left much of the promise that charters hold unfulfilled. That’s why the recent ranking of Kentucky’s law by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools as the 10th-best in the nation is as unfortunate as it is inaccurate.

Inaccurate in that it gives too little weight to the law’s many shortcomings, three of the greatest being: restrictions on chartering authority, unreliable funding and the failure to allow any new avenue for improved educational opportunity to students in rural communities through virtual learning.

By restricting chartering authority to school districts, the law in effect gives the competition control over its competitors. The Center for Education Reform and its allies in their fight to secure a strong law, pushed hard for independent multiple authorizers and were able to improve the law with a provision that allows the mayors of Louisville and Lexington to be authorizers. Frankly, though, that’s not enough.

Allowing universities to be authorizers, for example, could have been included in the measure. As provided for in some of the nation’s best charter school laws, allowing university authorizers takes the expertise and operational capabilities of a robust educational institution and combines it with the independence to embrace cutting-edge teaching methods that can move the needle for students. It’s a great dynamic in the development and operation of charters – just not in Kentucky.

In states with strong charter school laws like Indiana, Michigan and New York, universities have proven to be incredibly sophisticated and successful charter school authorizers. But in a shortsighted move resulting from school district pressure, Kentucky’s law allows no new provision for universities.

Financing is also very problematic. Because charters must rely on a separate appropriation for funding, Kentucky charters will be forever vulnerable to politics. Without equitable funding, great charter groups will be hard pressed to even complete the application process, let alone open and operate a school. This tenuous funding arrangement could prove disastrous for charter success and growth.

The other glaring shortcoming of the bill is its failure to allow any new avenue for improved educational opportunity to students in rural communities—those who are least likely to have qualified teachers in such areas as calculus and the sciences. The way it stands now, it is very unlikely that any chartering will happen outside the cities, which given the plight of rural America as articulated by Kentucky’s own JD Vance, is a tragedy. Virtual learning can solve the major logistical problem of providing a world-class education to those for whom it is out of reach due to distance and limited enrollment, among other roadblocks to opportunity. As Kentucky’s charter law now stands, students in communities far from Kentucky’s urban areas simply won’t receive many of the benefits charter schools could provide for them.

Ranking Kentucky’s law at number 10 also minimizes several other key shortcomings of the legislation. Compare the NAPCS’ description of the law, as “relatively strong,” to the findings of The Center for Education Reform (CER) which began ranking charter school laws in 1996.

“Kentucky’s law is weak,” reported CER in its most recent National Charter School Laws Ranking and Scorecard. “It puts power in the hands of school districts and allows for needless regulations to limit the autonomy that prospective charter operators should have. In fact, some of Kentucky’s regulations are likely to prevent the establishment of charter schools in the first place. District authorizers, heavy regulation, and inequitable funding earn, the state a ‘D’”.

As for the unfortunate part of NAPCS’ inflated ranking, aside from distorting reality, it does damage by reinforcing an “our work is done here” mindset. Kentucky lawmakers worked hard on a bill but they came up short. NAPCS’ endorsement helps them ignore that fact, and bask in the glow of being rated among the best when, actually, they’re among the worst. In fact, CER found Kentucky’s law to be modeled after those of Iowa, Virginia, and Kansas – all laws rated “F” by CER that have resulted in no truly independent charter schools.

Kentucky legislators deserve credit for getting a charter law on the books. But make-believing that the current law is a top-10 achievement doesn’t make it so. If Kentucky’s families are ever going to have the opportunities an innovative and robust charter sector has to offer, lawmakers still have a lot of work to do.

Jeanne Allen is the founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based pro-charter school group.